The new game in town.

The 'back room'

Some teams not so good at winning on the ground resort to trying to win off.

 

16 minutes ago, Demonland said:

Sorry they're sideways. I'm out at the moment. Will fix later. 

Well those images kill off my theory that he pushed at the chest and it slipped up. I'm not sure it really matters that much if it's an open palm or fist. It's still a hit it the head.

although I hear if you use the elbow you get less time.

28 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

she also said in the hogan case he was throwing up in the rooms after the game, no mention of headaches.......so which is it? and again how do you prove it was this incident when no on-ground tests done by medicos

Exactly!  I don't get that the MRP puts such a heavy reliance on the Cripps and Rowes medical symptoms after the game but the doctors did nothing at the time.  In neither case did they even send runners out. 

I just had a look at the video again and at no time does Rowe's head hit the ground.  He clearly falls on his left hip and then leans back.  That's it!  When does he get the concussion?  And, anything could cause his nausea!

I think most people accept a penalty was inevitable but the severity based on coincidental events is galling.  Carlton are sore losers.

Edit:  Both incidents happened in the 3rd qtr.  Shouldn't the doctors explain why they didn't pick up symptoms at 3/4 time.  Don't they have a duty of care to do simple checks?  The AFL should investigate why Doctors didn't check if they were worried about concussion. 

2 minutes ago, Stinga2 said:

Well those images kill off my theory that he pushed at the chest and it slipped up. I'm not sure it really matters that much if it's an open palm or fist. It's still a hit it the head.

although I hear if you use the elbow you get less time.

One week for that disgusting elbow? The mind boggles. 

5 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

They wouldn't make the same decision if it was a 'pet' and favourite clubs like Essendon, Bulldogs, Carlton or Giants.

I'm really sickened by the MRP decisions today.  

I'm so over our club being penalised for things the MRP and AFL turn a blind eye to when it suits them.

Their inconsistency is sickening.  Bloody disgraceful though Hogan in particular was stupid and unfortunately others will see him as an easy target to get under the skin . 

Must learn to become less petulant. 

5 hours ago, dl4e said:

Hogan gets 2 for a retalitory love tap. I am sorry but that is a joke. Lewis has been thrown to the wolves. The mrp are a joke. 

No. Jokes are humeorous. 

4 hours ago, pitmaster said:

We should not be surprised when these penalties are not replicated for other incidents later in the year. This can only be the MRP trying to make a stand early in the season.

It is such a mediocre operation in there. No transparency and rewards for petals like Rowe indulging in acting classes.

Is it my imagination or do we routinely do badly with the MRP?

We do seem to be the target of experiments. 

The Trengove / Dangerfield first ever sling tackle

The Grinter / Wallace first ever non reported review

Jakovich suspended in a practice match for wrestling

Jack Viney suspended for standing his ground - thankfully reversed on appeal. 

4 hours ago, Wilbur said:

Not  bothered really  good to   see   a  bit of   mongrel for  a change  

Hogan wasn't mongrel - it was petulant 

21 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Caro just said on FC that the Carlton medical report 'did not mince words' and 'did Melbourne no favours'.  She said Carlton are angry about the 2 incidence and Melbourne are angry about the medical reports.  She said there is 'bad blood' between the two clubs.

It sounds like Carlton did a dummy spit and decided to make life difficult for us.  The medical evidence apparently is why we won't appeal - pretty difficult to argue against doctors.

They stitched us up!

An interesting backstory.

Let's not rely on it to suggest Lewis and Hogan deserved not to be suspended - both did.

But interesting nonetheless.

Hope we can repay the favour next time against the squealers.

Be interesting to see if either miss. My cynical view is that both will play and that the medical reports have been exaggerated. 

I felt both were worth a week based on low impact. 

Shocked at the severity.

 

Not surprised by Carlscum's actions, a cesspool of a club with zero morals, cheating scumbag who spit thee dummy when things don't go there way. Carlton people generally have two wits, halfwits and f&$*wits

 

Not sure if this has been mentioned, but the farce that is the MRP may be an opportunity for everyone at the club to galvanise the  "us versus them" mentality developed brilliantly in the Northey era. We were unfashionable but united, and when the likes of Rod Grinter and Big Strawbs O'Dwyer were regularly given holidays by the farce that was the tribunal in those days, it was used as a point of motivation and strength for everyone associated with the club. At the playing level, Hogan and Lewis will be be sorely missed, however, there will be two spots available for someone on the list to come in and play a role. More importantly, the team and the club have a golden opportunity to shove it up the AFL, its archaic "systems" and show that we are deadly serious about our improvement and our place in the football world.

They love bruise free footy at Carlton...

1 hour ago, titan_uranus said:

An interesting backstory.

Let's not rely on it to suggest Lewis and Hogan deserved not to be suspended - both did.

But interesting nonetheless.

Little confused by this. I just saw this on FC now. I haven't watched the show for years, but is it on earlier as well (I don't watch commercial tv)?

The AFL need to review the 'review' process whereby they rely on the club in questions medical report and treat that as gospel.

The review needs to be brought forward to game day and essentially concluded before the players and club officials leave the playing venues - 2 hours would be ample time. The MRP can conduct their own medical reviews where an official/club doctor from each club is present to verify the evidence and reach consensus on the findings.

All this lagging rubbish is half the problem. It gives people too much time to form opinions which invariably get swayed due to public pressure and added media coverage.

Sort it out on game day.

Ox made a point on the radio to say that Cripps, up until that point was smashing it...Lewis did a bit of sniping....he did it a lot at Hawthorn. MRP hate that sort of thing maybe?

I've watched the Hogan hit a few times and it looks like Rowe was legitimately rocked by it, both are fair penalties in my book.

Lewis got three because of his record.  It could have been two if he hadn't been done so often as a Hawk. It's all their fault. 

Carlton played us well, and clearly frustrated our players. We got sucked in big time and they deserve time off. 

7 hours ago, Call Me What You Will said:

Not sure if this has been mentioned, but the farce that is the MRP may be an opportunity for everyone at the club to galvanise the  "us versus them" mentality developed brilliantly in the Northey era. We were unfashionable but united, and when the likes of Rod Grinter and Big Strawbs O'Dwyer were regularly given holidays by the farce that was the tribunal in those days, it was used as a point of motivation and strength for everyone associated with the club. At the playing level, Hogan and Lewis will be be sorely missed, however, there will be two spots available for someone on the list to come in and play a role. More importantly, the team and the club have a golden opportunity to shove it up the AFL, its archaic "systems" and show that we are deadly serious about our improvement and our place in the football world.

Strawbs is still a bad boy at our games. Seen him enjoying a ciggie outside the ground a few times.

A senior Officer of the AFL (can't remember who) has the power to ask the MRP to review a case. 

Now that it is reported that Carlton medical reports reflected their anger, it is a case where a review is warranted in my book.  Not much point the AFL having a power if it is never used.

The Hogan/Rowe event has the more tenuous link of the 'hit' and 'delayed' concussion symptoms.  The club should ask for the AFL for it to be reviewed (and accept the Lewis one).

Then the AFL can ask the Carlton doctors why they didn't check Rowe on the ground or at 3/4 time.  I know the answer it is either because there was nothing to see or because they didn't want him off the ground for the compulsory 20 minutes.  Either way the doctors have their own case to answer. 

I would like MFC to request the AFL for the Hogan review to show that we won't take it lying down when another club sets out to nail someone.  And to test the power of MRP review system. 

9 hours ago, hells bells said:

Be interesting to see if either miss. My cynical view is that both will play and that the medical reports have been exaggerated. 

I felt both were worth a week based on low impact. 

So according to the Cripps report he has a hairline fracture of the jaw and Rowe is suffering from concussion, headaches and nausea ..geez I wouldn't like to see what you consider high impact.

As an aside, if the MRP are relying on medical reports, the MRP then has a responsibility to review all games within a very short time frame and ascertain if there is a charge to answer. If there is then the players and their club must allow independent corroboration of the medical report. Rowe and Cripps should have had a follow up latest Monday morning by an independent medico. It may not have helped with Rowe but it would certainly would with Cripps to determine the exact extent of his injury. 

Who knows if the reports are  "doctored" but certainly when it gets to the pointy end of the season and finals there is definitely an incentive to make a report more damning that it actually is. Language used can be persuasive. Imagine a scenario where Lewis had carry over penalty's ( which he had in this instance)  and he is playing in the first non elimination final  - Lewis is reported  - there is an incentive for a team to be "blunter" in its medico assessment as there is a possibility that the team may meet Melbourne further into the finals series and there is a chance to have one of the better players removed.

I don't really believe that the medical reports are "doctored" but the problem is that the MRP relies on them. Therefore the MRP leaves itself open to criticism that medical reports may be harsher or more exaggerated  than they need be either through the other team being peeved ( as some are claiming Carlton are) or possibly being advantaged in a finals series scenario.

 

 

Just watched a replay and Cripps had a few moments during the game where he took heavy tackles where he seemed to hit his head on the ground once (Viney tackle early on) so how can they be sure it was the Lewis hit that caused the fracture??

24 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

A senior Officer of the AFL (can't remember who) has the power to ask the MRP to review a case. 

Now that it is reported that Carlton medical reports reflected their anger, it is a case where a review is warranted in my book.  Not much point the AFL having a power if it is never used.

The Hogan/Rowe event has the more tenuous link of the 'hit' and 'delayed' concussion symptoms.  The club should ask for the AFL for it to be reviewed (and accept the Lewis one).

Then the AFL can ask the Carlton doctors why they didn't check Rowe on the ground or at 3/4 time.  I know the answer it is either because there was nothing to see or because they didn't want him off the ground for the compulsory 20 minutes.  Either way the doctors have their own case to answer. 

I would like MFC to request the AFL for the Hogan review to show that we won't take it lying down when another club sets out to nail someone.  And to test the power of MRP review system. 

Looks like a very dangerous manipulation of the rules if clubs are keeping injured players on the ground to avoid the 20 minute rest. 

8 hours ago, A F said:

Little confused by this. I just saw this on FC now. I haven't watched the show for years, but is it on earlier as well (I don't watch commercial tv)?

It was on 9 Gem or one of the other 9 offshoot channels they have at 830pm last night, usually always on much later on the main channel 9

Both Lewis and Hogan deserved suspensions, but what bothers me is the consistency of the MRP and its obviously flawed system. The Lewis decision, whilst I don't like it, I can understand it given his previous bad record (which would have expired had this incident occurred a week later ). The Hogan one, however, is just one week too severe if the MRP wants to maintain a consistent approach in how they evaluate these penalties. Thomson gets off with one week? Varcoe one week? Both these incidents were on par with Hogan's, if not worse! Is it simply because Hogan's fist was deemed closed that he gets the extra week? If so, then what a joke of a reason! 

Additionally, to rely on the medical reports of the opposition's doctors is just crying out bias, especially if you play a bunch of sad losers who want to get back at you by stripping you of some of your best players. There needs to an external doctor, neutral to both teams, to evaluate the level and severity of impact from an objective perspective - not one who works for the opposition's team. 

I am happy to admit that both deserved suspensions and would accept them - particularly Hogan's - if they had valid reasoning and were consistent with the rest of the MRP's decisions, but they just fail to meet this criteria. 

 

ALSO, does anyone know if we are thinking of appealing Hogan's?

I can't believe that people are still trying to defend Hogan and Lewis. If you hit a bloke in the head, miles off the ball, you deserve to get reported and you deserve to get suspended. If you don't like what the MRP does, don't put yourself in a position to get judged by them. It's not brave, it's not tough, it's just plain stupid and now the team is going to be significantly weakened in a run of games that is crucial to our finals chances.

Lewis' attitude in the third quarter on Sunday was abysmal. Wouldn't run, wouldn't chase, but was happy to whack a bloke in the head miles off the ball. For a supposed leader, his effort was really poor. I suspect if he had been at the club for longer and the coaches could see the signs, we might have acted before he did something stupid and removed him from the situation.